What we omit in training is what we are most vulnerable to

I recently came across this old bit of video footage which I thought I’d share:

What interested me is that the wrestler leaves himself vulnerable to being choked as he tries to grip the judoka’s legs. Because wrestling does not allow chokes it’s entirely understandable that he would not be fully aware of that vulnerability. However, it also is a nice illustration of how the probation of a given method can result in practises that are very vulnerable to that same method.

A method can be prohibited by rules (in competitive settings), or simply omitted from practise due to it “not being part of our system”.

I recall reading some writing of Jigo Kano (the founder of Judo) who was concerned that because punching was not permitted in randori, judoka were starting to practise in a way that left them very vulnerable to being punched i.e. hands low and chin forward.

There are lots of other example of course and every system pretty much has them. The omission of things like the option to escape (as opposed to always fight) and multiple assailants as petty generic omissions too. And because they as omitted, they are “off radar” and hence vulnerabilities exist.

Hug had a background in Kyokushin and Seidokan Karate were punches to the head and face are not allowed. Rules in the above fight are obviously closer to the Kyokushin/Seidokan rules permitting contact to the head and face hence the Thai Boxers problems to not aim too heigh. Even after punched in the face several times Hug does't took precautions due to the fact that was against the rules.

The genesis of the UFC and MMA was the Gracie's working out that what they did was exactly what non-grapplers and stand up martial artists were vulnerable too. Grapplers getting hit, strikers getting grappled.

The genesis of the UFC and MMA was the Gracie's working out that what they did was exactly what non-grapplers and stand up martial artists were vulnerable too. Grapplers getting hit, strikers getting grappled.

That’s very true.

I also think it extends beyond the technical to the tactical as well. The vast majority of today’s training is one-on-one and hence there is great vulnerability to groups because the correct tactics are never taught or practised. People will make themselves vulnerable (physically and legally) by always staying and fighting if escaping is not practised and encouraged. There is vulnerability to legal issues if that is never considered. And so on.

A good self-check for people could well be:

1 – What am I never practising?

2 – Is there a reasonably probability of that occurring within the context I am training for?

3 – Anything from listed in my answers to Question 1, that had a “yes” or a “maybe” in Question 2, will be the thing that is going to cause me problems.

I a person was training for self-defence then it would work like this (just listing three examples for the sake of ease):

Self-Defence Practitioner

1 – What am I never practising?

Escaping from multiple attackers, defences against leaping hook kicks

2 – Is there a reasonably probability of that occurring within the context I am training for?

Escaping from multiple attackers - Yes

Defences against leaping hook kicks – No

3 – What are the things that are going to cause me problems:

Escaping from multiple attackers

If you do the same thing again from the perspective of competitive TKD practitioner things change.

Competitive TKD Practitioner

1 – What am I never practising?

Escaping from multiple attackers, defences against leaping hook kicks

2 – Is there a reasonably probability of that occurring within the context I am training for?

Escaping from multiple attackers - No

Defences against leaping hook kicks – Yes

3 – What are the things that are going to cause me problems:

Defences against leaping hook kicks

“What we omit in training is what we are most vulnerable to” seems to be a pretty good maxim, so long as context is also considered. We could also used the process above to reflect on whether our practise is meeting training goals?

The enemy my training and teaching focuses on is the type of person/people I had experience of, friends, opponents and of course my own behaviour. If I asked some of the people I once socialised with if they considered themselves a striker or a grappler they would probably give me a sideways look and call me something quite derogatory :-)

The key tactic to consider from an opponent in my view is deception, even where multiple opponents are present. The attempt to get close, maybe gain tactile control, using verbal to disarm you.

Therefore much of our training is managing space ( fence) ,impact (obviously) but with animal aggression and tactile skills. Kata is the bedrock of what we do because the old masters dealt with the same problems. The problem with modern martial arts is many schools want their skills to remain neat and tidy

In our ground work its simply about getting back to our feet. The same principles are applied whether horizontal or vertical. In a "real" situation I wouldn't look to engage my opponent in a chess like tactical battle so we very rarely train that way.

The tactics the skilled fight starter may use are low in number BUT they will likely be highly proficient in using them. Knowing this allows me to better focus my approach and make the best use of my dojo time